Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Placid sends in a Wired blog entry on Wal-Mart's new sub-$200 Linux-based PC. Wired calls it "a custom distribution of Ubuntu Linux," and the AP identifies the distro as gOS, made by a small company in Los Angeles. Wal-Mart began selling Linux PCs in 2002 but they have been out of stock for a while. From the Wired blog: "It has a 1.5 Ghz VIA C7 CPU embedded in a Mini-ITX motherboard, 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software. By using the fast Enlightenment desktop manager (instead of heavier-duty alternatives like Gnome or KDE), the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers."

I saw this yesterday and was considering if it would as the next pc for my parents. I don't think so - for one reason, powerpoint. But my folks might be a little unusual with that requirement. I also wonder if my dad could sync his palm to it.

Then we'd need to make sure that their printers are going to work all right. And I'd probably need to teach them how to use new software for printing photos. The more I think about it, as much as I hate to say it, the less I think it would work.

Then we'd need to make sure that their printers are going to work all right. And I'd probably need to teach them how to use new software for printing photos. The more I think about it, as much as I hate to say it, the less I think it would work.

As someone who got Vista with a new PC I can assure you these problems are not limited to *nix.

Another interesting thing is that these machines are being loaded with Enlightenment as a default "lightweight" environment. Time was (only 10 years ago) when Enlightenment was regarded as CPU and graphics-heavy and was only used as a window manager under Gnome (default option for RedHat 5.x and 6.x comes to mind). Just goes to show...

The only thing that worries me here is that this will be a lot of consumers first experiences with Linux. Does this really demonstrate modern Linux in the best possible light? From a visual and usability point of view I can't help but think that the average consumer will be disappointed even in comparison to older MS operating systems. But then what do you want for $200?

So you would buy MS Office at $460 for a $200 PC? And of course that also needs a windows license for another $210 so you are up to $670 worth of software for a $200 PC. Then of course you would need the commercial equivalents for all the other software that comes with that machine which would probably run around a total of $2500+ for a $200 PC. Yeah - that makes a lot of sense for home users (the target market.)

Say what you will about Open (Star) Office but it handles 95% of the business documents I deal with perfectly on a daily basis. It should handle 99.999% of the home needs just fine. The only reason it can't handle the remaining 5% is due to Microsoft's refusal to fully document and release specifications to the MS Office file formats. It's not OK to support a company that illegally abuses it's monopoly status to damage competition.

As I'm sure you're already aware, OEM pricing is very different from full retail, plus it's not like he's going to need Office Professional (the one that would cost $460) just to get Powerpoint. Looking at MS's product matrix [microsoft.com], he could get away with "Home & Student" and still get Powerpoint - that can be had from Newegg for $129 [newegg.com], and includes Word, Office, Powerpoint, and OneNote. Compare to StarOffice [sun.com], which is $70 - yes, you get most of the same functionality, but it's still not quite the same; the point, however, is that this is less than a third of the price you quoted.

Windows licensing, meanwhile, is not $210 for OEM licensing. A NewEgg search [newegg.com] reveals that you can get OEM licensing in packs of three for roughly $410; that works out to under $140 per license. Obviously, mass-manufacturers of PCs get much more favorable licensing pricing than that, but, for the sake of argument, we'll say that the customer is paying $140. This is still $70 less than the number you pulled out.

So, at this point, we've spent no more than $270 in software. Is this $270 you don't have to spend if you get the WalMart Linux PC? Of course, but if the WalMart Linux PC doesn't fit your needs, $270 is a reasonable number, and certainly much more reasonable than the hyperbole-screaming $2500 you came up with on a whim.

DISCLAIMER: I run Ubuntu Linux on everything I have because it meets my needs and does so at a price point that I am quite content with (free!). I do think that, as far as Linux distros go, it's easily the most user-friendly one that I've ever run across, and would happily recommend it to anyone that has some basic technical acumen. That said, I do not run Ubuntu because of it's philosophy, nor do I do it because of any particular dislike of Microsoft's "monopoly practices". From where I'm sitting, Microsoft did precisely what Ubuntu is doing now - they offered a lower priced (compared to the competition of the time), mostly fully featured set of applications that met the needs of a vast majority of people. Think back to the late '80s - if you wanted a GUI, the only way it was going to happen was if you bought new hardware that was incompatible with your existing IBM hardware or if you paid through the nose for OS/2... until Windows 3.0 came out. Need a server operating system? No problem - your choices were Unix (required expensive hardware, had severe vendor lock-in at the time, licensing was atrociously expensive), Netware (a little better on all counts, but still pricey), or Windows NT (same interface as all your workstations and a little cheaper). If you're a 10 person operation, guess which one you're picking? Hey, it's 1994 and you need a small database. Microsoft Access costs $100. How much does everything else cost? Oh... I see. Access it is! How about an Internet browser? Remember when those weren't free-as-in-beer? How did they get free? That's right - Internet Explorer. Were any of those products perfect? Heck no. All of their products were functionally inferior to the competition - but they met the needs of 99% of the world and cost less than their competition. Sound familiar? What people seem to forget in their haste to hate Microsoft is that, for better or worse, they were better behaved than their competition of the time. Now, their time is passing, and look who's sneaking up on them...

If you can afford Office 2007 go ahead and buy it, but as already discussed, this machine isn't going to be very good at running windows, so you'll need a different PC too.

Be aware though, that as OpenOffice continues to develop and becomes more of a competitor, you as a MS user will benefit, through more money being spent on R&D to bring you new features, as MS try to maintain their lead, as well as lower costs as MS try remain competitive.

Without competition, you'll see MS continue to develop their software like they did between 1999 and 2006 where windows saw only an incremental improvement between Windows 2K and Windows XP and Office changed even less.

This comes up a lot, this idea of "preaching". How is advising - even demanding - people to make ethical decisions "preaching"? Simply put: Technical superiority and cost aren't the only considerations that should be made when you decide which product to purchase and use.

Microsoft is an unethical business. They use monopolistic practices to distort the market to their advantage, and they lobby for and exploit restrictive laws to prevent threatening innovation in software development. Because they are such a huge business, the impact and severity of this behavior is similarly huge. It's very important as an ethical human being not to give them money or other forms of support, because if you do, you're actively aiding in their activities which harm the rest of us.

It seems to me "don't preach" is a slightly obfuscated way of saying "Don't tell me what to do". Nobody here can make you do anything, but that doesn't give you an excuse to do whatever you like, without regard to ethical considerations. And offering advice and commentary on what seems like an unethical action is far from preaching, unless "offering an analysis which takes into consideration right and wrong" falls under your definition of preaching.

Yeah, I've been thinking about a new machine for my parents for a while now, though this isn't much of an upgrade from what they currently have (though I'm sure it runs faster.) Then I saw this:

Even at the low end, however, image is everything. The gPC is built using tiny components, but put inside a full-size case because research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers are so unsophisticated they equate physical size with capability.

I think it's silly, because I'd rather have desk space, but I have to admit my first thought was, "That's what SHE said!"

Even at the low end, however, image is everything. The gPC is built using tiny components, but put inside a full-size case because research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers are so unsophisticated they equate physical size with capability.

That comment is actually quite inflammatory. I'd bet hard money that they never used the word "unsophisticated" when discussing why they made it large. However, the thought expressed by these "insophisticates" is generally true: You can generally fit weaker machines in smaller cases than more powerful machines. That's why there's still a market for the freaking huge Lian Li cases for power users... because some powerful gaming machines require freaking huge cases. And it's why the Mac Mini is in a s

Are you kidding? About the only differences in size come from buying a nice video card instead of using onboard video or a low-profile card, and having more hard drives. Regardless, it's nice to have the room to expand and good airflow that come from having a needlessly large case.

OpenOffice.org Impress can open and save.ppt files, so they will still be able to do that. There are also utilities to sync with palm devices, I hear they work pretty well now. Printers may be an issue, depending on the maker and quality of the printer. Printing photos can be done from the default image viewer (not Gimp), I don't see how that would be very difficult to teach.Honestly, get a Ubuntu LiveCD, pop it into their current computer, and test drive it. I'm sure there will be a learning curve, bu

What is this "modern" software they speak of? Just how much horsepower do you need to browse the Web, type something in a word processor? Is there some sort of super Solitaire with realtime physics simulation and ray traced graphics that I don't know about?

I was wondering that, too. I have a 1.25GHz eMac and a 1.6GHz PowerBook, and the only software I've used that doesn't run acceptably fast is NeoOffice and maybe iMovie. Word, Excel, iWork, Photoshop Elements - they're all fine.

My family computer at home is a 1.2GHz 512MB machine that I threw together about 5 years ago. It dual-boots Ubuntu and XP, and runs everything from desktop publishing, to office apps, to web browsing to home video editing just fine for our needs.

This box would be a step up, and for half what it cost me building what I already have.Too bad this is only WalMart USA (not their Canadian branch) selling this.

I'd love to know how well these will sell -- perhaps we can arrange a follow-up in a few months?

More seriously, this falls under the "computers as appliances" paradigm. This "home computing appliance" cost less than many "home gaming" appliances, about as much as a cheap all-in-one sound system. It delivers basic internet functionality. The users shouldn't care what OS it runs anymore than they care what OS their printer runs. This is not to say that there can be a potential snag: users trying to inst

More seriously, this falls under the "computers as appliances" paradigm. This "home computing appliance" cost less than many "home gaming" appliances, about as much as a cheap all-in-one sound system. It delivers basic internet functionality.

Actually it has a lot of capabilities missing in any version of Windows short of Server, such as unrestricted number of clients for fileserving. And it comes preinstalled with a lot more than just the OS, including a full-featured office suite.

These computers are in cases that would fit a full-size ATX motherboard. Supposedly Wallmart did a survey, and found that most of their customers believe "Bigger is Better", even when it isn't. It is not a terrible deal given that it's a mini-ATX motherboard, but using that big a case for it is just wasting space.

Even better than that, the computers being sold as 'green PC' meaning thats the mfr's product name, and has nothing to do with being enviromentally conscious.

It is not a terrible deal given that it's a mini-ATX motherboard, but using that big a case for it is just wasting space.

It provides more room for expandability. I can certainly see wanting to at least add a second hard drive for backups.

has nothing to do with being enviromentally conscious.

From the Via website:
" Developed from the ground up for low power operation, the VIA C7 processor is based on the advanced VIA CoolStream(TM) Architecture and manufactured using IBM's state-of-the-art 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) process, and delivers the greatest performance per watt in the business.

Capable of running up to 2.0GHz with ultra low power consumption of around 20 watts peak power and operating at an average power of less than 1 watt, the VIA C7 processor is the embodiment of cool processing and sets the standards for next generation of desktop, mobile and personal electronics systems."

Bingo.If you know the way WalMart works, you know that it's silly to speculate that they have some magical marketing formula for selling these things. These things aren't meant to be bought; it's just an unfortunate side effect of their true function: to bring people in to gawk at the $200 computer before they decide they really want to buy something more expensive (and it turns out priced about the same as the competition). That's what WalMart is about: low price point stunts to rope you in, settle for s

I have a Mac Classic maxed out to 4 MB of RAM that is "more responsive" than vista. It's also got a ~8" black and white built in monitor, so it has some restrictions, but talk about smooth response! Not everything can be solved with RAM and CPU. Some problems must be solved with good system design.

Unacceptably low-end for modern software? Huh? I do some development at home, but other than that nearly all of my time is spent either reading email or surfing the web. Neither is particularly heavy.

And I'm happy with my bottom-end MicroCenter PCs that cost under $300, even with the development work. I did double the memory to 1GB, but that was the only change for two years. (Last week I decided to add a low-end NVIDIA card.)

I'll grant you that it's not a great choice for playing movies, and would undoubtably suck as a game platform, but for a lot of people that system would easily satisfy their needs and is far more affordable than the crap I've seen pushed at the same market -- get a 'name brand' pc for only $19.99/week for a year!

So is it for everyone? No. Is it a good choice for a lot of people? Yes.

I ordered a Wal-Mart Linux PC. I'm using it for a backup server at home right now.

This was back in 2002 or 2003. It was $200, only available by mail-order, and came with a CD-ROM drive and single hard disk (20GB?). I picked up a crummy CRT at the local second-hand computer store and started exploring Linux. I replaced the hard drive with a removable hard drive bracket.

It took me a while to figure out that the CD reader had subtle errors (after 3 different distributions of Linux failed to install) and replaced that too. The thing was, the smaller box (is that called mini-ITX?) would only fit the very smallest CD drives, and both my new CD RW and the removable hard drive bracket protruded out the front in a rather ugly way.

The thing came with Lindows (as it was called at the time). I tried it for 10 minutes and then replaced it with "Pink Tie" Linux, then Mandrake 8.1, then LibraNet Linux. (I tried Debian, too, but that "dselect" thing is way too cryptic.)

Looks like Wal-Mart is back with more PC's for the people. That's great. It will bring more visibility to Ubuntu, and Linux in general. And that's the point of the whole thing: to let Linux have more visibility so that manufacturers, and people in general, won't say, "Hey, we don't have to make our video player compatible with Linux because nobody uses Linux."

The bottom of the screenshot shows some type of application launcher or something. Does anyone know what that is exactly? I'm still looking for something stable to work as my "RKLauncher" for my Ubuntu setup.

The variant of Linux on the gPC is called gOS and is derived from the popular Ubuntu variant. It's heavily oriented toward Google's Web sites and online applications, like YouTube, Gmail and the company's word processing program, all of which can be used only when the computer is connected to a broadband line. The PC comes with a dialup modem, but gOS doesn't support it. So most users likely will get online other ways.

the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers

Not to go off on a rant but my #1 pet peeve with software, especially anything from Microsoft, is all the hardware gains of the past 20 years are lost of bad software. Whether due to bad design (feature bloat) or bad execution, Vista and MS Office on current consumer hardware aren't any more responsive than Win 3 and Word or AmiPRO or whatever was running back in the day.

There was a/. story recently linking to a web log article about security analysis. The author, an employee of Microsoft, made a ridiculously inane comment about developers responding to users' requests. Really made me want to kick the guy in the nads. Does he really think users want to upgrade to faster CPUs and larger hard drives to benefit developers rather than themselves?

When MS Office 2k7 was in beta and the PR push was on for the new menu system, I read an analysis by MS of MS Office apps and their menus over the years. The space taken up by menu bars was listed as number of pixels and as a percentage of the typical screen size. The message was, although menus had grown in absolute size, the percentage of the typical screen had stayed the same. Like that was a good thing.

For the obligatory automotive analogy, would people take advantage of the improvements in engine design, lighter materials, etc. by buying large trucks rather than getting improved fuel efficiency with cars of the same size?

Something I'd like to point out. This is true at least for the limited number of computers I work with at home, Office 2007 loads faster on XP than Office 2003 does. Word and excel open almost instantly, it amazes me every time. On vista it's about the same however. I think the new menus make it easier to find things, but that's just personal preference. I hear a lot about people wanting to get the old styled ones back. I'd say the change hasn't been well received.

Your automotive analogy is actually quite correct. Engines are getting better and better. The problem is cars are getting more and more equipment and therefore weight more.
Top gear compared a VW Golf R32. Weight went double so power also had to double to compensate the equipment weight (heated seats and all that crap). So, more bloat, more power. I the end the energy consumption is maintained while the engines become more efficient.

Not to go off on a rant but my #1 pet peeve with software, especially anything from Microsoft, is all the hardware gains of the past 20 years are lost of bad software. Whether due to bad design (feature bloat) or bad execution, Vista and MS Office on current consumer hardware aren't any more responsive than Win 3 and Word or AmiPRO or whatever was running back in the day.

Case in point: there is little fundamentally different that I would be doing on a 2007 Vista business computer that I could not just as easily accomplish on a K62 350mhz machine from 1998. (or was it 99? Anyway, it's old.) I had that very machine, came with Win98. I upgraded it to Win2k and that sucker ran like a raped ape. Responsive, dependable, would get you on the net, word process, all the shit you'd expect of a computer. It could run the games of the day just fine. In an office environment, games and

I want one.... I want to see if it is actually usable. Does my thumb drive work, my printer, my camera, my mouse and keyboard. Or do I have to drop another couple hundred dollars buying all new components. If everything I own works and the software is good, I don't mind Google docs and use it more than Word. I would guess the big hurdle is the Ipod. My folks would be fine with this PC but the Ipod obstacle stands in the way. I think it's a good idea I may consider but it may be in front of it's time. If the

Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software. By using the fast Enlightenment desktop manager (instead of heavier-duty alternatives like Gnome or KDE), the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers.

You're taking an underpowered machine, with a non-standard desktop, OS and software, and selling it to what is likely the least tech knowledgeable market that you can find.

Yes,because the buyers are really going to be expecting the best hardware avaiable for $200. They will expect something that works reasonably and is good value for a bottom end price.

b) Mark can't figure out why it isn't like every other computer

Given how pretty Enlightenment looks, and given the public's liking for eye-candy, most buyers are going to think"hey, this is cool". Screenshot of this PC's default theme here [desktoplinux.com].

c) Mark can't make $9.99 computer game install

$200 hardware is obviously aimed at gamers

d) Mark can't make MS Word document open.

Why not? I have never had a problem opening and MS Word document on any Linux distro I have tried, click on it in the file manager. You do not even have to install any additional software, what you need is in the default install [desktoplinux.com] - unlike a good many cheap Windows PCs.

e) Profit?

At that price, very likely. Margins will be very low given the volumes Wal-Mart could potentially shift they do not need to be high.

It always kills me to read the specs on a site like Dell.com and see all these machines described as "suitable for web browsing, email..." When I went to Siggraph in 1998, PII/400s were the new hotness and all the kickass machines that ran all the 3D apps had MAYBE 16 MB video cards. Today, they make it sound like a 3 GHz machine is usable only if you're a complete simpleton and will never have more than 2 apps open at once. Unbelievable.

By using the fast Enlightenment desktop manager (instead of heavier-duty alternatives

I remember when Enlightment was taking heat for being a resource hog, compared to normal window managers such as WindowMaker.But Gnome and (to a lesser degree) KDE managed to make it look lean. Not only they are bloated, but the feature set, flexbility and graphics quality is complete crap. They're rapidly approaching locked-down, dumbed-down level of XP or Vista as far as window manager functionality is concerned. Way to c

"It has a 1.5 Ghz VIA C7 CPU embedded in a Mini-ITX motherboard, 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software."

You've got to be f-ing kidding me.That is nonsense. the author has been talking to sales people and/or the microsoft vista team.That is double the spec you need for XP with office-like software and broadband Internet multimedia stuff.

The latest games and vista are the only "modern software" for which those specs are inadequate.And that is only because games can always use more power and are thus coded for the latest and greatest equipment.(I can't explain vista)

The real story is that five years after Wal-mart started selling linux PC's online...they are still selling them online, not in-store. That's the real story, and it still shows that linux isn't ready for general idiot consumer use, because well, wal-mart employees still don't know what linux is and hilarity would insue at most wal-marts when their employees try to explain that the computer doesn't have windows, but that the employee doesn't know if x game that specifically says it's for windows only will run on the $200 pc.

On the contrary, the article points out the hilarity that would ensue if someone would install Vista:

If users want to install Windows on it, they can, though Everex cautions that Vista will not run well without a RAM upgrade. Recent games will not run well, if at all, on the gPC: the requirements of even humble titles like World of Warcraft exceed the system specifications.

I think that people are soon going to realize something that speaks to their pocket books about Linux: it runs on the slowest of hardware. Sure, webpages and plugins will require more resources but that's the great advantage Linux will always have over Windows--that minimum requirements is nearly unbeatable. So keep tweaking that kernel and you'll start to see a $150 machine go on sale that will do nearly everything. Then a $100 machine. Then an $80 machine. And so on and so forth until you'd have to be a raving lunatic (or fat rich American) to pay the beefy cost of a premium machine just so you have the resources that the latest Windows needs to consume.

How much precisely will you pay to have your UI look like glass and all your games run at the highest resolutions? I think we're approaching the point where only avid gamers & people with too much disposable income will support the ladened OS that is Windows.

If memory serves, it wasn't all that long ago (1970? 1971?) that 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB would have been the specs on a pretty high-end machine.

I think -- better said, I _HOPE_ -- you are joking. But, as I didn't see a smiley --

In 1970, 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB would be an billion-dollar-expensive, multiple-building-sized computer.

Hell, in 1991, when I graduated, such a machine would/still/ be a supercomputer. The 1993 Cray Y-MP C90 916/16256 (16 processors) performed at 15 MFlops (the VIA C7 should be like 75 MFlops), had 1GB of RAM, and up to 32GB of solid state disks (battery-backed RAM banks), and it was closet-sized. It's not a testimony to Linux quality the fact that it runs snappy on such a machine, it's a testimony to XP/Vista's lagginess that they don't.

Yeah, but don't try and run Open Office on that machine. Gonna suck. Not that MS Office 2007 would run great either, but for a modern machine, it's still pretty pathetic. It's about at the year 2001 level.

For simple Web browsing / email, such a machine works fine. If they sold it as an email / web appliance, that would be better, but to sell it as a general purpose home PC is a little disingenuous especially as it won't run any other software that Walmart sells.

And you're saying that it wouldn't be possible to make an office suite that focused on efficiency? As I recall, there weren't any problems running with a 300MHz P2 just a decade ago. It wouldn't necessarily be less functional, just less shiny and a bit slower.I'm sure there'd be quite a market for it if people actually noticed these $200 machines floating around.

Are you saying that office 2007 performs the same as office 2000? Or OOo the same as 2000? Really... Having run both, I beg to differ. Office 2K is much faster than current Open Office on the same machine. Open Office has been plagued with performance problems for years. In fact, MS Office 2K runs faster in a vmware virtual machine than open office does natively on the same machine! That says something.Despite that, I still primarily use OOo because my modern linux systems are screaming fast and the result

How was this modded insightful? In 1990 or 1991, a 386DX 50 mhz with 8 meg ram and a 200 MB hdd would have been a high end pc, probably costing around $3,000. This walmart pc would have been completely unheard of back then. Perhaps you meant 2000 or 2001.

1991 was pre-Pentium; hot stuff then would have been a 68040 if you were a Mac user, and some sort of 486 if you used PCs.

I don't get what people's problem is with the performance of this thing. Granted, I don't upgrade very quickly (I have a dual-1GHz machine and an ancient headless Pentium-133 box under my desk, and the dual-GHz box only replaced a 400MHz one last year), but that's more than enough power for everything except gaming.

Frankly I'd like to see consumer hardware plateau so we can get off of the upgrade treadmill, and the software people can start groveling around retirement communities to find someone who knows what 'optimization' means. It's absolutely ridiculous that people think you can't do typical productivity tasks on a 1.5GHz machine.

Exactly. This is the effect of free software: it raises the bar. Commercial software can exist above the bar, but not below it. When the bar is raised high enough, the free package becomes "good enough". The price of hardware is falling to the point where the Microsoft license costs more than the rest of the computer combined, and that's when the "good enough" option becomes compelling.

I bet windows XP or 2000 would install on this thing and run just as fast as this Ubuntu variant they're using and then you'd have access to much more software (and more FAMILIAR software). That is, assuming you could get drivers for everything. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is on that but there doesn't seem to be any reason it all wouldn't be supported by XP (2000, might take some work). Vista though, forget about it. There's not a single component of that computer (maybe the keyboard. maybe) tha

Despite being a big Linux advocate, the same can really be said of capable versions of Windows. My parents use an AMD K6-2 350mhz machine with an 8GB hard drive and 256mb of RAM. It's running Windows 2000 with the latest Firefox installed, and an upgrade is not anywhere on the horizon for them. My mom checks email and browses eBay. My dad checks email and keeps track of his Fantasy Football teams. That machine running that software performs those functions just fine, despite being horribly outdated. My brothers machine: a Celeron 566mhz with a 40GB hard drive and 512mb of RAM, running XP. He surfs the web, uses AIM, and does his Fantasy Football thing on it. He's also not looking at upgrading anytime soon.

The simple fact is most normal people don't know the difference between a fast computer and a slow one. The only time they normally buy a new one is when their computer gets enough spyware on it that it no longer works properly. They buy that new system because the old one was "broken", not really slow. For people with free tech support (see above), that generally doesn't happen.

I agree, to an extent. The difference is that Microsoft won't sell you Windows 2000 any more, and next year starting in July they won't sell you XP either, whereas I'm typing this on an old Compaq Armada with a P-III 550 and 320MB of ram, running the latest Xubuntu. Sure, the old versions of windows are still capable, but how long do you want to keep supporting them, when you can run current versions of linux?Personal disclaimer: I used to have my parents running on a linux box, and it was fine, especiall

The last I heard of Everex was in the mid 1980s when it was a player in the niche market of souped-up 80386 PCs. I assume that it was one of the countless companies that eventually went out of business and whose brand name was bought up by some Far East electronics OEM.

For about $100 more you can get one of these puppies with 1GB RAM. However, the catch is you get Windows Hasta La Vista Home Basic on it. Eew.My first computer ever was an IBM PC 5-slot, aka the Model 5150. One of the first things I did was shove an Everex 1200bps modem in it. They've been around for at least 20 years.

I wonder what kind of RAM it takes? Then again, 512MB RAM is just fine for a NAS running Debian Etch, which is what I am seriously considering purposing this machine for.

I like Enlightenment, but it is VERY different than Windows, and not completely intuitive. For example the icon bar (like a task list) defaults to being able to go under things (in Ubuntu anyway). Also, no start button and no files on the desktop.

XFCE works very close to gnome or Windows and looks great. Stuff saves to the Desktop, it has a start button and a task bar. No autoflip on screen edge (by default) no multi-view ports (by default at least). Using enlightenment almost to me sounds like designed failure. I would think a slightly sluggish Gnome or KDE would give a better impression.

I also think the biggest thing would be a lighter-weight (than Firefox) but still highly site compatible (like Firefox) web browser would help. On my system (that uses Gnome) Firefox is the biggest memmorey hog. I also have a Celeron 3.4GHz with 512 MB of ram. I installed Xubuntu, but also some Gnome and KDE apps. Firefox is using 125MB of RAM. My SWAP is at 400MB used of 800MB. I am using XFCE and as long as no super Flash site comes up things run fairly well, though there is definite lag in the Google Apps, they are functional.

I like Enlightenment, but it is just too unixy for the complete novice I think.

The desktop that they're showing in the screenshots (Enlightenment + Some File Manager + Some Dock App) is as full featured as any common desktop system today, and it should be able to compete at bling as well. Going with XFCE probably would have been better-integrated, but to noob users this system will look as good as a Mac (and thus *look* better than Vista).

I said this all along: The OLPC might be okay as a giveaway in third-world countries who don't have any choice and will accept anything that might be useful technology.

The OLPC is not mainly a giveaway, anywhere. It's an enterprise device designed to meet the neds of a particular industry, i.e., national education systems in the developing world. There are some "giveaway" projects, and some investigation of one government buying them for another, but the principal focus is selling them directly to the gove